Errors in the Bible

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

As for the KJV of the Bible? I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree yet again. It does contain errors. There is no avoiding this fact and it has been proven to be so. This does not make it worthless and I do not denigrate the book in any way by stating this. But man was involved in the writing of this book, and unfortunately, man isn't infallible.
I believe that the KJV is the best version of the Bible that we have freely available though.


Hi Leveller,

I agree with your comments on the KJV being a flawed translation and there are various posts on the board where I have provided rather important verses mistranslated...and then misused. I don't agree, however, that the KJV is the "best we've got". In fact, I believe the best we've got is reading a passage in more than one translation. For instance, when I'm reading the Old Testament I read the KJV, and then I read the JPS Holy Scriptures. When I'm reading the New Testament I read the KJV, and then I read the NRSV...more specifically I tend to read it from the Greek-English interlinear version, that way I have my Greek words right there if I fill inclined to look them up.




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
each paragraph i wrote was silly? and o.k mark might be older than luke...which i kind of despute because im sure luke was written first by paul. i don't get where in most places i am wrong though? as i said at the top of my post...'christians will not take what i say in any seriousness, also at the end i prety much said the same thing that christians will not believe what i said. i cant even begin to start how wrong you are when you says the first 5 books of the OT were written by moses. that is you personal oppinion and not fact. it is fact that there were four different viewpoints of the same 'god' and those were all put together to form the first 5 books. also it doesnt mattew whether matthew, mark, luke and john all agree on jesus being the source of life. i was pointing out they were written by people that never met him or witnessed even one of his so called miracles.

and valhall?? you stopped reading because you think im wrong...that mark is the oldest book. im not too worried about that i know luke is, your in the wrong. maybe if you read on you would have found out a bit more about the bible...but i guess you wanted to carry on beliving the rumours and here-say.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by shaunybaby

the four gospels, matthew, mark, luke and john, were written decades after jesus died. argue all you want because that is the truth. those four gospels that show jesus' life were written by people that lived after jesus died, and that also never met the messiah himself. paul the founder of christianity wrote luke, and this was the first of the four to be written. the next was 'matthew', this book was written after 'luke' for the reason that the person, who wrote matthew, didnot believe that the book 'luke' told the 'true' story of jesus in its entirity. in some parts of matthew, mark and john, which were all different versions of luke, sometimes copy word for word from luke and hold so many contradictions that we cannot get a clear idea of jesus' life from these four gospels.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by shaunybaby]


okay, I stopped reading right here, because this was wrong and I did one of those totally human things of just assuming all the rest was wrong. Mark is the oldest gospel.



According to the link that LadyV provided www.religioustolerance.org..., no one is sure which was written first. Here is a quote from the site:


Since the books themselves are undated, the order in which they were written is not absolutely clear. John McVay lists some theories:

Oral Theory: The three gospels were written independently and all based on "structured and durable oral traditions"
Augustinian Theory: The three gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; each author had access to the earlier gospels
Two Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q.
Four Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q. In addition, Matthew includes some material from a third source, often called "M". Luke similarly includes passages from another source, often called "L". Both L and M were probably oral traditions.
Two Gospel theory: Matthew was written first. Luke was written later and based on Matthew. Mark was written last, and based on Luke and Matthew.
Theory of Markan Priority without Q: Mark was written first. Matthew was written later and based on Mark. Luke was written last, and based on Mark and Matthew.

The Augustinian Theory was accepted by the Christian church for most of its history. The Four Source Theory is supported by most mainline and liberal theologians today.


While I am sure the site is attempting to further its own viewpoint in some way, at least it provides all other viewpoints as well. It provides information on how there were some later additions to the bible and such.

To all those who say to "trust in God, and believe His word" or something to that effect, I'd be very happy to trust in God, but only if I could understand what part of the Bible is God inspired, about all the contradictions and errors. That is why I started this thread.


[edit on 3/1/05 by babloyi]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
No.. shauny, don't take my words the wrong way...I was admitting my own error upfront. I did go back and read the rest of your post, but commented prior to reading it. And then once through with your post, didn't feel any different about it after I was through...and no, I didn't learn anything new about the bible, accept your point of view on it. But that's worth something, right?

If you want to make Luke older than Mark get with all the scholars of the world and get buy-in...when you have that, I'll listen. But you deciding to shuffle the age of the manuscripts doesn't affect me much when I've got a whole pack of scholars dating the oldest gospel manuscript known as that of MARK.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
well according to that site babloyi gave us there really is no total agreement on which of the gospels were written first. this makes me, you, the church or scholars not correct in saying luke or mark was the first to be written.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall


I don't agree, however, that the KJV is the "best we've got". In fact, I believe the best we've got is reading a passage in more than one translation. For instance, when I'm reading the Old Testament I read the KJV, and then I read the JPS Holy Scriptures. When I'm reading the New Testament I read the KJV, and then I read the NRSV...more specifically I tend to read it from the Greek-English interlinear version, that way I have my Greek words right there if I fill inclined to look them up.


Val. I was talking about an actual version. You're talking about gathering versions together - something that I totally agree with and the way that I always read the Bible myself. Remember my Parallel Bible?


DrHoracid. With respect, I don't see the Satan's trap theory as being logical. I do agree with you that God predates the Bible though and I therefore believe that what the Bible does is update older truths and myths. It didn't all start with the writing of the OT and the older texts that it draws upon also contain relevance.
I find it interesting when we see an older tale such as the Epic of Gilgamesh (which is basically a travelogue) turned into a tale of morality. This makes neither story less relevant as both are equally worthy of our attention and study.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Here is a link to a pretty good internet bible.

www.biblegateway.com...:22-29&version=9;


Here is a link to some translation issues.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Pray twice, take two apsrins, and call me in the morning...........



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
why would i want to read an internet bible...ive got one sitting next to my computer always. im not religious, im not a christian...the bible however, if read in a non-spiritual or non-religious way can be a great read. if you start to make sense of the bible, try to make it literal, try to see it in a religious or spiritual way, or interpret it to be inspired by god then personaly i think the book becomes flawed in many ways.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
One blatant flaw for people calling themselves "christian":

IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY CHRIST!!

The new testament was written by mat, mark, luke, john et al. not jesus.

Its like trying to be a neo-nazi but reading the hitler diaries instead of mein kampf!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
why would i want to read an internet bible...ive got one sitting next to my computer always. im not religious, im not a christian...the bible however, if read in a non-spiritual or non-religious way can be a great read. if you start to make sense of the bible, try to make it literal, try to see it in a religious or spiritual way, or interpret it to be inspired by god then personaly i think the book becomes flawed in many ways.


Open your mind a little. It would appear (based on your posts) that your current reading of the Bible is only to find flaws.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Open your mind a little. It would appear (based on your posts) that your current reading of the Bible is only to find flaws.


Heh. I got as far as the header on the page - "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE".

I just can't go with the literal translation of the Bible as being the be all and end all. If it was, those who espouse it's literal purity wouldn't need to defend their corner all the time. There can be no logical argument against purity, but there certainly is logical argument that can be found to hold true against the text as we have it now.

I know for sure that there are errors within the English translations of the Bible and to deny this basic truth could be as spiritually dangerous to those who recognise those errors as it could be to those that decide that there aren't any.

As I've stated before, I don't denigrate the Bible by my refusal to accept it literally. I do believe that it is is the responsibility of the individual to look for the truth within it's pages for himself though.

I woulds also have to disagree with your above statement. I read the Bible to find truths. One of the most fulfilling aspects of my life is being able to find something within it's pages which I find to be relevant to my being. One can't state that the whole book is relevant to me though - if it were, I would be living a life of contradictions.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
One blatant flaw for people calling themselves "christian":

IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY CHRIST!!

The new testament was written by mat, mark, luke, john et al. not jesus.

Its like trying to be a neo-nazi but reading the hitler diaries instead of mein kampf!


This is kind of a vacuous argument actually. I don't believe anybody is even alleging that it was, so what is this undoing? And I think you can probably get a real good feel for the way Hitler lived his life and what commitments he made by reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich...Hitler didn't write that one either.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
The internet link goes to a source of many. many, versions of the bible in many languages. Yes there are mistranslations from Hebrew to Latin to Greek - english - To whatever. Seek and ye shall find. You are on your way. May GOD Bless you in your search.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Here is a link to a pretty good internet bible.

www.biblegateway.com...:22-29&version=9;


Here is a link to some translation issues.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Pray twice, take two apsrins, and call me in the morning...........


Oddly enough, the biblegateway site is what I was using whenever a bible quote showed up. Perhaps not so odd actually. It was one of the first sites to come up when I searched google. I tried looking through the answeringgenesis site, but I could not find information in general about translation errors. Perhaps you can provide a direct link to a page with the information?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid


Open your mind a little.


I know your not telling someone else to open thier mind.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
This is kind of a vacuous argument actually. I don't believe anybody is even alleging that it was, so what is this undoing? And I think you can probably get a real good feel for the way Hitler lived his life and what commitments he made by reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich...Hitler didn't write that one either.


"A good feel" maybe but i dont go round caliming to know how he thought about the place of the nude in art or what his favorite pen was.
To make a whole religion based on second hand sources some more that 50 years out... well.. I'm not fooled by it.

When people use it as the foundations of Jesus' teachings it is a huge issue IMO. I would liked to have heard the words "my dad is god" from his own mouth not someone elses, 'coz my money is on that being the biggest misquote EVER!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
I tried looking through the answeringgenesis site, but I could not find information in general about translation errors. Perhaps you can provide a direct link to a page with the information?


Maybe not a translation error but it will give you some idea of what you are up against if you are trying to study the Bible and take it literally. Take a look right at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind: and God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
Gen 1:25,26

And the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam ... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:18-20


In the first passage you can clearly see that God made man after he made the animals. In the second He did so before.

Wouldn't this seem to suggest that these two passages were written by different people? How could one author make such a glaring error so early in the book!!?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by DrHoracid


Open your mind a little.


I know your not telling someone else to open thier mind.


"Open doors in the mind do not require one to walk through the many doorways into Hell." famous quote.................



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I just think you should take your own advice, you are by far one of the most close minded here at the ATS!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by babloyi
I tried looking through the answeringgenesis site, but I could not find information in general about translation errors. Perhaps you can provide a direct link to a page with the information?


Maybe not a translation error but it will give you some idea of what you are up against if you are trying to study the Bible and take it literally. Take a look right at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind: and God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
Gen 1:25,26

And the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam ... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:18-20


In the first passage you can clearly see that God made man after he made the animals. In the second He did so before.

Wouldn't this seem to suggest that these two passages were written by different people? How could one author make such a glaring error so early in the book!!?


You have been "told" Adam was the first man, he was not. The two verses are speaking to two different time periods. Gen1 is creation.....Gen 2 is the creation of "adam" in the garden of Eden.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join